- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 07 2011,15:41) There is good evidence that there is a significant genetic component. Separated twin studies show that if one twin has a tendency to particularly devout religious belief, it will be present in the other twin also. That is consistent with god belief having an adaptive advantage for humans living in tribes. If the tribal leader can unite the tribe and get them to put the common good ahead of individual egos, their survival will be enhanced. Appeal to the rewards and punishments of a “higher power” must be believed to be effective, and hence a genetic component that has been favoured by natural selection.
There are other suggested mechanisms, like the trust that very young children have for what adults tell them to do. It is critical to their survival, and the survival of our species, that young children follow their parents' instructions. An adult that has acquired and/or cultivated a god belief will pass that god idea on to a receptive child, rather like the child catching a cold easily due to reduced immunity.
And if you have the stomach for it, there is Freud. He claimed that a god is a father substitute.
I agree that it is an interesting question. It will continue to be interesting, because I think we are witnessing the time when the tribal advantage of slave-think is becoming a liability in the new global situation.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 07 2011,15:41) Separated twin studies show that if one twin has a tendency to particularly devout religious belief,
The keyword here is devout which has connotations of sincerity and sincerity is a quality of a good person.Belief in God actually splits many families.
Jesus even acknowledged this would happen and it does happen.
e.g., I am very much like my dad, yet he is an Atheist and I am not.If being devout was genetic, then so could peacefulness, bad-temperedness, and happiness be genetic. And if so, then we shouldn't blame or persecute people for doing bad things and instead blame it on the genes.
But I call you out on your foolishness in teaching that there is no God because it is not a genetic weakness in you that blinds your mind, rather it is just you being unwise. Character is something you can control. That is why society attempts to change bad people into good citizens, because it can be done. It is really just a matter of being convinced of something and it is that which changes a person.
And people who believe in God for the first time (the ones that see the light) experience a conversion that is not based on a godly upbringing. e.g., my dad was an atheist and brought me up that way and I went through school as an Athiest. Yet when I searched for the truth later in life, it was revealed to me in a powerful way. In fact it is almost impossible for me not to believe now because I have seen.
It all started for me when in a moment I decided to be honest and consider the possibility of God existing. I fully expected nothing would happen and I would continue as an Atheist. But God reached out to me instead and not only was I was fully surprised, but I soon discovered that God is awesome too.
Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 08 2011,19:53) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 09 2011,02:44) Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 07 2011,20:36) stu yes it was very interesting,but 19 minutes does not cover all.
he did not say how many Honest people living now on earth ,and that are in Governmental position ,ect
and the arms race that can obliterate the planet living beings
and the hardships created by those sociopath in the world of government and business ,banking,ect
Pierre
No, he was talking about the ongoing decrease in violence. I don't think his talk was meant to cover everything.Stuart
stuI for that reason put in dough his data ;it seems that men every were more and more become opportunistic , look what happen in many disasters and because of the hardship , crimes are committing,
Pierre
You did hear the point he was making about human perceptions not always meeting the data.But then he did not argue against the idea that the nature of violence has changed, I would accept that aspect of what you are saying.
Nevertheless the overall picture is that we live in the most peaceful times, possibly in the entire history of our species.
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Dec. 08 2011,21:10) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 07 2011,15:41) There is good evidence that there is a significant genetic component. Separated twin studies show that if one twin has a tendency to particularly devout religious belief, it will be present in the other twin also. That is consistent with god belief having an adaptive advantage for humans living in tribes. If the tribal leader can unite the tribe and get them to put the common good ahead of individual egos, their survival will be enhanced. Appeal to the rewards and punishments of a “higher power” must be believed to be effective, and hence a genetic component that has been favoured by natural selection.
There are other suggested mechanisms, like the trust that very young children have for what adults tell them to do. It is critical to their survival, and the survival of our species, that young children follow their parents' instructions. An adult that has acquired and/or cultivated a god belief will pass that god idea on to a receptive child, rather like the child catching a cold easily due to reduced immunity.
And if you have the stomach for it, there is Freud. He claimed that a god is a father substitute.
I agree that it is an interesting question. It will continue to be interesting, because I think we are witnessing the time when the tribal advantage of slave-think is becoming a liability in the new global situation.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 07 2011,15:41) Separated twin studies show that if one twin has a tendency to particularly devout religious belief,
The keyword here is devout which has connotations of sincerity and sincerity is a quality of a good person.Belief in God actually splits many families.
Jesus even acknowledged this would happen and it does happen.
e.g., I am very much like my dad, yet he is an Atheist and I am not.If being devout was genetic, then so could peacefulness, bad-temperedness, and happiness be genetic. And if so, then we shouldn't blame or persecute people for doing bad things and instead blame it on the genes.
But I call you out on your foolishness in teaching that there is no God because it is not a genetic weakness in you that blinds your mind, rather it is just you being unwise. Character is something you can control. That is why society attempts to change bad people into good citizens, because it can be done. It is really just a matter of being convinced of something and it is that which changes a person.
And people who believe in God for the first time (the ones that see the light) experience a conversion that is not based on a godly upbringing. e.g., my dad was an atheist and brought me up that way and I went through school as an Athiest. Yet when I searched for the truth later in life, it was revealed to me in a powerful way. In fact it is almost impossible for me not to believe now because I have seen.
It all started for me when in a moment I decided to be honest and consider the possibility of God existing. I fully expected nothing would happen and I would continue as an Atheist. But God reached out to me instead and not only was I was fully surprised, but I soon discovered that God is awesome too.
I don't thing the word devout indicates good when discussing the actions of devout islamist suicide bombers.What point are you trying to make about genetics? I would have thought you would have said that devout belief should not be the subject of persecution because it is something over which the believer might have little control. Was that the direction you were headed when you got distracted?
It appears from the rest of your post that you have whatever god genes are. As you know, I have honestly considered the possibility that your god exists, but have not been the subject of any “reaching out”, and you have not been convincing because you have not described or analysed the experience you attribute to an Invisible Friend, the thing you have “seen”, you have just told us that is how it is. I don't know of any atheist who would think that an honest way to behave, especially to the extent of changing a personal worldview in such a radical way.
The giveaway is in your “search for truth”. Truth is a personal construct, and you believe things that aren't true regarding natural history (or at least I assume you haven't changed your mind) so the truth you have sought is a worldview of abstract concepts that bear only a passing relationship with what we observe, pre-written for you by Bronze Age goat herders and early Iron Age fishermen, some of whom apparently did indeed abandon their families in order to follow yet another Jewish preacher called Jesus claiming to be the messiah.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 09 2011,05:59) Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 08 2011,19:53) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 09 2011,02:44) Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 07 2011,20:36) stu yes it was very interesting,but 19 minutes does not cover all.
he did not say how many Honest people living now on earth ,and that are in Governmental position ,ect
and the arms race that can obliterate the planet living beings
and the hardships created by those sociopath in the world of government and business ,banking,ect
Pierre
No, he was talking about the ongoing decrease in violence. I don't think his talk was meant to cover everything.Stuart
stuI for that reason put in dough his data ;it seems that men every were more and more become opportunistic , look what happen in many disasters and because of the hardship , crimes are committing,
Pierre
You did hear the point he was making about human perceptions not always meeting the data.But then he did not argue against the idea that the nature of violence has changed, I would accept that aspect of what you are saying.
Nevertheless the overall picture is that we live in the most peaceful times, possibly in the entire history of our species.
Stuart
stuyes that is what i meant ,the world is shifting and specialy in the muslim world and I wander what will happen when the sharia law will become more and more common in those countries ? this is a law that came out from barbaric custums
and the supremacy of the muslim over all others ,this is to be wached and see,
did you read the judgement in the Neederlands ? about
As an editor at the National Post, I often rely on three letters to protect my columnists from human-rights tribunals: I-S-M — these being the difference between spelling Islam and Islamism.
The former is a religion — like Christianity or Judaism. The latter is an ideology, which seeks to impose an intolerant fundamentalist version of Islam on all Muslims, and spread the faith throughout the world. Declaring Islamism a menace isn’t controversial. Declaring Islam a menace is considered hate speech.
Welcome, Real Clear Politics readers!
We’ve noticed a lot of traffic coming to this story from Real Clear Politics. Here are some other links we thought you might like:
Robert Fulford: Bin Laden’s cult of hate will live on
Get more religious news and opinion on our religion blog, Holy Post
.
Geert Wilders’ refusal to deploy those three letters is the reason that the 47-year-old Dutch politician travels with bodyguards, and cannot sleep in the same house two nights in a row. For Mr. Wilders, the problem plaguing Western societies is Islam, full stop. Terrorism, tyranny, the subjugation of women — these are not perversions of Islam, as he sees it, but rather its very essence.“The word ‘Islamism’ suggests that there is a moderate Islam and a non-moderate Islam,” he told me during an interview in Toronto on Sunday. “And I believe that this is a distinction that doesn’t exist. It’s like the Prime Minister of Turkey [Recep Tayyip] Erdogan, said ‘There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam, and that’s it.’ This is the Islam of the Koran.”
“Now, you can certainly make a distinction among the people,” he adds. “There are moderate Muslims — who are the majority in our Western societies — and non-moderate Muslims.”
“But Islam itself has only one form. The totalitarian ideology contained in the Koran has no room for moderation. If you really look at what the Koran says, in fact, you could argue that ‘moderate’ Muslims are not Muslims at all. It tells us that if you do not act on even one verse, then you are an apostate.”
Unlike most critics of Islam, who tend to shy away from the explosive subject of Mohammed himself, Mr. Wilders forthrightly describes the Muslim Prophet as a dictator, a pedophile and a warmonger. “If you study the life of Mohammed,” Mr.Wilders told me, “you can see that he was a worse terrorist than Osama bin Laden ever was.”
It is an understatement to call Mr. Wilders a divisive figure in the Netherlands. On the one hand, he is the leader of the PVV, the country’s third most popular political party — which currently is propping up the ruling minority government. And Mr. Wilders has been declared “politician of the year” by a popular Dutch radio station, and come in second in a variety of other mainstream polls.
On the other hand, the Muslim Council of Britain has called him “an open and relentless preacher of hate.” For a time, Mr. Wilders, even was banned from entering the U.K. A popular Dutch rapper wrote a song about killing Mr. Wilders (“This is no joke. Last night I dreamed I chopped your head off.”)
Before meeting Mr. Wilders on Sunday, I knew him mostly from his most inflammatory slogans — such as his comparison of the Koran to Mein Kampf — which his detractors fling around as proof of his narrow-minded bigotry.
Yet the real Geert Wilders speaks softly and thoughtfully. It turns out that he’s travelled to dozens of Muslim nations. He knows more about the Islamic faith and what it means to ordinary people than do most of Islam’s most ardent Western defenders.
Nor do I believe that Mr. Wilders is a bigot — a least, not in the sense that the word usually is understood.
“I don’t hate Muslims. I hate their book and their ideology,” is what he told Britain’s Guardian newspaper in 2008. Mr. Wilders sees Islam as akin to communism or fascism, a cage that traps its suffering adherents in a hateful, phobic frame of mind.
Mr. Wilders describes Muslim as victims of bad ideas, in other words. In this way, his attitude is entirely different from classic anti-Semites and racists, who treat Jews and blacks as debased on the level of biology.
Of course, in the modern, politically correct Western tradition, hatred expressed toward a religion typically is held on the same level of human-rights opprobrium as hatred expressed toward a race or an ethnicity. But Islam is not really a religion at all, as Mr. Wilders sees it, but rather a retrograde political ideology with religious trappings.
He notes that while other religions draw a distinction between God and Caesar, between the secular and the spiritual, Islam demands submission in every aspect of human existence, both through the wording of the Koran itself and the Shariah law that has developed in its shadow. The faith also supplies a justification for aggressive war; vilifies non-believers; and pronounces death upon its enemies. In short, Mr. Wilders argues, it has all the ingredients of what students of 20th century history would recognize as a fully formed totalitarian ideology.
“I see Islam as 95% ideology, 5% religion — the 5% being the temples and the imams,” he tells me. “If you would strip the Koran of all the negative, hateful, anti-Semitic material, you would wind up with a
tiny [booklet].”It’s easy to see why many Europeans casually jump to the conclusion that Mr. Wilders is a hatemonger. He wants to halt non-Western immigration to the Netherlands until existing immigrants can be integrated, and he wants to deport any foreigner who commits a crime — the same sort of policies as those advocated by genuine xenophobes.
But even so, his insistence on the proper distinction between faith and ideology is an idea that deserves to be taken seriously. For it invites the question: If we permit the excoriation of totalitarian cults created by modern dictators, why do we stigmatize (and even criminalize) the excoriation of arguably similar notions when they happen to be attributed to a 7th-century prophet?
It’s a good question. And as far as I know, Geert Wilders is the only Western politician taking it seriously.
National Post
[email protected]Geert Wilders has been acquitted; that he went on trial at all is a disgrace
By Ed WestPoliticsLast updated: June 23rd, 2011
402 CommentsComment on this article
Wilders should not have been in court at all
The trial of Geert Wilders has ended with the Dutch politician acquitted of inciting hatred and discrimination.
Wilders faced five counts of hate speech and discrimination for remarks made publicly between October 2006 and March 2008, and in his controversial short film Fitna (Arabic for “Discord”). He is now a free man – well, as free as any man who’s under 24-hour protection can be.
At the close of the trial earlier this month, the PVV leader gave a speech that – I hope – will be listened to by European liberals.
I personally do not share his view of Islam; religion is too often used as a catch-all explanation for immigration failures or even strange or cruel customs (female circumcision, for instance), while many forms of Islam, and many ways it is practised by everyday people, are not remotely threatening or incompatible with European life (there is also a disconnect between the way university-educated people read about these people called “Muslims” and the Muslim friends they actually know, who are perfectly normal people who have lives just like them and don’t go around saying “derka, derka”).
But Wilders has every right to wish to preserve his national culture. And the very fact that he is going on trial for his views, and under permanent guard, is disturbing and disgraceful, and shows that that culture is in danger. He told the court earlier this month:
I am acting within a long tradition which I wish to honour. I am risking my life in defence of freedom in the Netherlands. Of all our achievements freedom is the most precious and the most vulnerable. Many have given their lives for freedom. We have been reminded of that in the commemorations of the month of May. But the struggle for freedom is much older.
Every day the armoured cars drive me past the statue of Johan de Witt at the Hofvijver in The Hague. De Witt wrote the “Manifesto of True Freedom” and he paid for freedom with his life. Every day I go to my office through the Binnenhof where Johan van Oldenbarneveldt was beheaded after a political trial. Leaning on his stick the elderly Oldenbarneveldt addressed his last words to his people. He said: “I have acted honourably and piously as a good patriot.” Those words are also mine.
As I have said before on this blog, a historical Dutchman who went on trial for saying such things about Christianity would be lauded across Europe. Wilders says things about a more conservative religion and he is accused of a hate crime. Where is the liberal outrage at this trial? Where are the BBC radio plays? When’s George Clooney going to make a film about Europe’s Islamophobia McCarthyite witch-hunts? Unlikely – the Oscars in 2005 didn’t even mention Theo Van Gogh on their annual slide show of movie people who died in the previous year. Freedom, if anything, means defending the rights of people you profoundly disagree with, even find offensive.
Half a century ago the idea that a major European politician could go on trial for insulting a religion, in the Netherlands of all places, would have been fitting only for a dystopian parody. Yet this is really happening, as western Europe adopts Singapore-style multicultural authoritarianism.
Tags: Fitna, Geert Wilders, George Clooney, Islam, Netherlands, Theo van Gogh
it is interesting ,
Pierre
Indeed it is interesting. I would also argue that christianity is a totalitarian belief system, and that teasing out the proportion of “ideology” from “religion” is irrelevant. Islam and christianity are 100% religion and 100% ideology. So what is the difference? Islam is more dangerous in practice because it definitely prescribes a violent response to “oppression” of islam, but it is ambiguous on what oppression means, so you have all sorts of devout muslims killing others in the name of their religion based on their interpretation of that. And that is just what is written in the sura. If you don't confine yourself like BD does, and take heed of the hadiths, violence is the method of mohammad so it can be the method of any muslim.
I have sympathy for the plight of Wilders, which is a strange feeling given that I detest the kind of zenophobic fascism that the far right often promotes in its calls for immigration control. Compare the National Front and the British National Party and their Nazi ideals. Maybe the difference with Wilders is that he is not being racist because islam is not a race. I think he is confused about what he does want, but is at least clear that he doesn't want the Netherlands to be islamicised, and I think his case is an ethical one. It is not like islam has anything positive to add to Dutch culture, it only has mindlessness and an attitude of slavery to contribute.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 10 2011,01:40) Indeed it is interesting. I would also argue that christianity is a totalitarian belief system, and that teasing out the proportion of “ideology” from “religion” is irrelevant. Islam and christianity are 100% religion and 100% ideology. So what is the difference? Islam is more dangerous in practice because it definitely prescribes a violent response to “oppression” of islam, but it is ambiguous on what oppression means, so you have all sorts of devout muslims killing others in the name of their religion based on their interpretation of that. And that is just what is written in the sura. If you don't confine yourself like BD does, and take heed of the hadiths, violence is the method of mohammad so it can be the method of any muslim. I have sympathy for the plight of Wilders, which is a strange feeling given that I detest the kind of zenophobic fascism that the far right often promotes in its calls for immigration control. Compare the National Front and the British National Party and their Nazi ideals. Maybe the difference with Wilders is that he is not being racist because islam is not a race. I think he is confused about what he does want, but is at least clear that he doesn't want the Netherlands to be islamicised, and I think his case is an ethical one. It is not like islam has anything positive to add to Dutch culture, it only has mindlessness and an attitude of slavery to contribute.
Stuart
StuI love your last sentence, so true,
I always wander why is it that those people can live all there lives with no improvement in anything ,just rubble,look in Irac,in Gaza,and Afganistan,only corruption is the rule,
What get to me it is our tax money,Pierre
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
